A remarkable number of the Tudors had ‘red-gold’ hair. Though the largest proportion of red hair in the world comes from Scotland, Ireland, and Teutonic countries, it can show up anywhere, so one has to assume the most probable source. We are dependent on descriptions of the day for the appearance of the Tudors (um, there were no cameras), and this leaves open the possibility for human error and bias.
The medieval standard for beauty was red-gold hair. Beauty in the Middle Ages was often equated with Northern European coloring. For example, Medieval depictions of the Queen of Sheba who is ‘black but comely’ portray her as black-skinned but golden haired in an attempt to reconcile both possibilities.
The Tudors were decendants of a rag tag group of upwardly mobile gentlemen who landed some high-born widows, or, in the case of the Beauforts, a hot lowly born widow of a knight. We don’t know what hair color, or even appearance, most of these jackpot-hitting upstarts had, but they must have been good looking according to the standards of the day.
It is pointless to go too far back in generations, since the further back you go, the less statisical significance an ancestor has on any given genes. For the sake of brevity, I will start with Elizabeth Woodville
ELIZABETH WOODVILLE
All Tudors after Henry VII are decendents of Elizabeth Woodville’s through her daughter Elizabeth of York. Elizabeth Woodville is “beautiful,” but not described otherwise, so we can assume she had very fair skin.
I have only seen reproductions of the Elizabeth Woodville portrait. Some of them show her with obviously red hair, others with more blonde.
Elizabeth Woodville and the Tudors had a similar origin: a widowed highly born Princess marries a lowly born gentleman in their service. Jacquetta of Luxembourg, half Italian and half French, married Sir Richard Woodville following the death of her first husband, the Duke of Bedford. That Sir Richard Woodville must have been dreamy can be surmised: he not only captured the hand of the Duchess, he also fathered at least 16 of her children, of which Elizabeth was the oldest and most famous.
ELIZABETH OF YORK
Elizabeth of York was a red head according to the only known portrait of her. She was the daughter of Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV, granddaughter of Jacquetta of Luxemborg on her mother’s side and Cecilly Neville (who’s mother was a Beaufort) on the other. Where the red head gene came from on her father’s side is anyone’s guess. He, himself was brown haired. He was English, with some Spanish and French blood, but primarily English. He and his wife were 2nd cousins.
Very, very little about Elizabeth of York is recorded: nothing about her education, opinions, political leanings or appearance. What can be ascertained by the later behavior of her children, she was regarded by her family and gave to them a family identity.
HENRY VIII GENERATION
Henry VIII’s generation was a mixed bag. Both Henry and Arthur had red hair. Margaret probably had genes for it, as Mary Stuart had auburn hair. Mary Tudor, however, was dark-haired later in life, though she may have been lighter earlier on. By the time she returned from France, she had dark hair as her marriage portrait to Charles Brandon testifies. I’ve often imagined that Henry VIII was attracted to Anne Boleyn because she reminded him of his headstrong, dark-haired, beautiful sister, Mary, of whom Henry was very fond. Anne, too, had a blonde sister, and though contemporaries are critical of her complexion and coloring, she probably wasn’t as dark as they supposed (some also claim she was covered in moles or witches spots and had 6 fingers).
Henry VII’s coloring is not described (correct me if I’m wrong on this, my books are currently all packed away in the attic), likely because it was unextraordinary, and because he was really a misery sort of person who was fond of dressing plainly in darker colors and wearing hats. He didn’t play up for pageantry or the cult of the icon. He was 1/4 Welsh, and his mother was a Beaufort, so both he and his spouse were decendants of Katherine Swynford. One could arguably make the claim that Katherine Swynford, or some Beaufort had red hair, since both the Stuarts and the Tudors have their genetic material. It can be guessed that Katherine de Valois probably did not have the possibility for red or blonde hair since none of her close relatives were redheads. Owain ap Meredudd ap Tewdwr is only known for being rash and without much sense, which proves nothing about his coloring.
My guess would lay with the Beauforts (who’s ancestors were John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford), and possibly with Owain ap Meredudd ap Tewdwr. A Lancastrian guess is a sound one, since the Tudors, the Stuarts, and Catherine of Aragon were all Lancastrians or Lancastrian Beauforts.
CATHERINE OF ARAGON
Catherine of Aragon was a remarkably beautiful princess by the standards of the day, despite her shortness. She had golden hair and fair skin, and was not at all dark such as movies like to show. Her appearance made her all the more pleasing to her father-in-law Henry VII. She was a legitimate decendant of John of Gaunt, the famous son of Edward III, whereas Henry VII was a product of John of Gaunt’s roll in the sack with Katherine Swynford. Catherine of Aragon was seen by the English people as being English in blood.
THE ELIZABETH GENERATION
Mary had red hair, which would stand to reason as she was the son of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. She, like her mother, was considered a beauty as a child. As she grew older it turned more ashy, as did both of her parents. Unlike movie depictions, Mary was never ugly. She was a beautiful child. When she reached her thirties, some considered her ‘plain,’ but never ugly.
Edward VI hair was more blonde. Elizabeth was blond-red. What it would have become later, we will never know since it fell out by the age of 28 (see previous post). Frances and Eleanor Brandon, children of Mary Tudor, Henry VIII’s sister, where probably brown haired.
By the time of the Elizabeth generation, the Tudor hair color became more than just a sign of beauty or appearance. It was viewed as proof of legitimate Tudor decent. Commentary by visitors to court would be on the coloring of all of Henry VIII’s children. That Mary was born with red-gold hair is not such a surprise. But it must have been a great relief to black-haired Anne Boleyn that her only child – though a daughter – had the Tudor red-gold hair. And it was indeed noted. When Elizabeth’s paternity was questioned, her appearance cast aside any doubts.
Same applies to the Scottish monarchs. James V, son of Henry VIII’s sister Margaret, was born with red hair. When Henry excluded Margaret’s line from his will he did so under the supposition that Margaret’s children were not those of her husbands (though they were obviously Margarets!), but this was very probably false. Margaret’s first husband, James IV was not really of Scottish decent. His father was German and Danish, with some Beaufort ancestry (again).
BEYOND THE ELIZABETH GENERATION
Jane Grey is mentioned as having auburn hair. Both of her parents would claim Elizabeth Woodville as an ancestor. Her father was a Grey, who were the product of Elizabeth Woodville’s first marriage, and her mother’s mother a Tudor. Her sister Catherine, I seem to remember, is described as a beauty. The only description of her youngest sister, Mary, is of her body: she may have been a dwarf, a hunchback, or possibly both.
Mary Stuart’s hair color is suspicious. Early accounts in France mention that her hair color was brown ‘almost grey.’ Some mention her has having auburn hair. Some even go so far as to claim she had golden hair. My guess is she dyed it at some point, and here is why. First, the variability. No one can make up their mind what color she was. Second, hair dying was very common in France. Queen Margot (Marguerite de Valois) would have been in the same generation and was famous for her hair dying. Third, she may have gone grey early, as there is at least one description of her in her late teens as having ‘almost grey’ hair. Fourth, her hair, like Elizabeth’s became redder as she became older. Fifth, she suffered from hair loss. And sixth, she went to the execution as wearing a very red wig – the one her decapitated royal head fell out of – so apparently she saw nothing wrong with it.
RED HAIR AND ENGLAND
That red hair was popular in Elizabethan England is undeniable. But was it popular on the continent? Not so much. Perhaps that was because the English were attempting to emulate their monarchs. Perhaps it was because it was viewed as an English/Scottish phenomenan. The Hapsburgs had a large proportion of blondes, inherited, possibly from the same root that gave Catherine of Aragon her red-gold hair (which ironically may have been the same genes that gave the Tudors their red-gold hair as well, the Lancastrians. But that is speculation, and statistically hard to prove). The french didn’t have a blonde or red-head in the lot, and neither did they really care.
The Tudors, though their origins were Welsh, were not very Welsh at all. Henry VIII was 1/8 Welsh. That’s all. He was primarily English. That four of Henry VIII’s six wives were English and that his two foreign brides were either of partially English royal blood or blonde must mean something. The other candidate for Henry VIII’s hand after the death of Jane Seymour was Christina of Denmark (who famously said if she had two heads she would gladly give one to England.) who was very blonde, and also of Lancastrian decent. Henry VIII gave a lot of power to appearance, and probably so did his subjects.
Astonishingly enough, given that only 1 to 2% of the human population has red hair (statistics may have been different in the 16th century), by the time Elizabeth died, England had had a red-headed monarch (either king or queen) for 138 years!!!* Tudor era men were conditioned to find high status women as attractive, so it would stand to reason that red hair would be viewed as beautiful in England.
SO WHERE DID IT COME FROM
What all of the red and blonde-haired Tudors or Tudor brides have in common is decent from John of Gaunt. Very many of them were also Beaufort decendents via Katherine Swynford. So they were all distant cousins. But statistically, fair hair, or a low amount of eumelanin, would have slowly disappeared if not more introductions of phemelanin and low eumelanin capable genes. These introductions could have likely come from, say, Owain ap Maredudd ap Tewdwr, Elizabeth Woodville (via possibly her father?), and Anne Boleyn. So, it came from lots of places.
THE “GENE” FOR RED HAIR
Hair color is not a Mendelian gene. It is the result of numerous genes, some which impact others, effecting which are expressed and which are not. There is no such thing a ‘a red haired gene’ since red hair is the absense of eumelanin combined with the presence phemelanin, both of which are governed in turn by more than one gene. Therefore, a person from Spain or Africa or India or Polynesia can have the potential for red hair, but the expression of such would depend very highly on choice of mate and probability. The mutation that allowed for the production of the red color in hair is something like 40-50,000 years old (blue eyes, youngsters that they are, are only about 10,000 years old), so it is probably pretty widespread. Therefore, to have ‘red hair’ is commentary on appearance, not on genetics or ethnic decent.
*I didn’t count the reign of Richard III since we don’t know what hair color Anne Neville had (though some depictions DO show her with red hair).





Very interesting – I had thought the red hair craze started with Elizabeth I, now I realize it began long before her time. I wonder also if the monarch-ial gene pool was a bit narrow, which kept the red hair gene-combination robust?
As for hair falling out – probably the lead based face paint they used to lighten the skin
You are absolutely right, the gene pool was a bit narrow. It was narrow for everyone. The math says that there must have been quite a bit of pedigree collapse, and not only amongst the upper classes.
Recall the requirement of bans in canon marital law. As of the 11th century, one was not supposed to marry anyone related to you within 7 degrees of consanguinity (and relationship by marriage, contract or betrothal counted), which would have been impossible to enforce amongst the lower classes where there was no record of kinship. The main purpose of the ban was not to determine if either party was already married, but if anyone in the village knew of a close kinship. British legal history and church documents show that close cousins quite often married without either knowing or having to recognize they were close cousins. So long as their was no substantial political power or economic power to be gained by contesting the marriage of non-aristocratic relations, a close relationship between a bride and groom was considered of little importance. So, the bans were a bit of canonical CYA-ing.
But in studying pre-Renaissance aristocratic marriage patterns one finds that many of the princes of the era were incredibly not inbred. Take for example, Louis, d’Anjou, titual King of Naples, etc, etc, and ancestor to lots. He had ancestors from every single corner of Europe, including Scandinavia (where they were still practing human sacrifices), various Russians and the Turks. Such a thing was not only possible, but likely when the church still had power to vigorously enforce it’s no-inbreeding rules and before the rise of the royal nation-state and systematic in-breeding that lead to the severe pedigree collapse of the upper classes in the early modern era. So before the royal houses of Europe started their intermarriage genetic joyride, the Prince of Europe could have been one of the least in-bred types on the continent. And since the inbreeding co-efficient is determined by the relationship between the mother and father, not how inbred the mother and father are individually (so two very inbred people who are not related to each other would produce a not so inbred child), one can imagine that when a member of the genetically insular Medieval upper classes reproduces with someone outside, they would be quite a bit more distantly related, then the typical peasant or middle class couple in Medieval Europe at large.
Later, though, things changed, particularly after the reformation. Marrying a cousin wasn’t a hard obstacle to get over among the Protestants. And, the Catholic church handed out dispensations for marrying cousins like they were free drinks at a wedding, mainly because it was practical and because there were only so many Catholic princes to go around. If it gave too many OK’s to marrying Protestants, then it would discount the power of excommunication and interdict.
Even before the reformation, though marriage between relatives in the upper classes occurred to prevent the dwindling of land-based wealth and to consolidate political power. More importantly to historians and unlike the middle and lower classes, in the upper classes we have records of how and why they married their relations. Marriage between cousins was contracted not only to keep the family tight, but also so no one else from the outside could marry them and strain the political and economics resources of the house or lay claim to some family inheritance.
The whole point is that even though the Tudors all share common ancestors, I think its entirely possible that they were quite a bit less in-bred than your typical European inhabitant for the above reasons. What we may have going on here is some selective breeding since the Tudors had many ancestors that had little more than their looks to recommend them (Owain, Anne Boleyn, Katherine Swynford, etc). Since this is the time before genetics really exisited as a taught science, the Tudors and late Plantagenets were entirely unaware of their preferences and the results thereof. And, to make them more fascinating, the Tudors themselves died out. Very little of the Tudors is in the current population. Of course, I am no geneticist, and I’m arguing all these claims just because it’s fun.
This is why America is such a wonderful place! We have all of these relatively unrelated people making babies (though everyone of us is acctually related)!
And yes, lead face paint was pretty rotten. And Elizabethan make-up remover was a mercury wash. Neither was good for any one’s health.
Excellent post! I found it while browsing the hits on my blog so have come along a bit late in the day!
My natural hair colour is a red gold, very similar to the Tudor colour and I’ve been told a few times that I look a bit like portraits of Mary Stuart as I have the same eyes apparently. I can’t see it myself!
I’m half Scottish, half English and my family claims descent from Edward I. However, I doubt that’s where my hair colour comes from as both my parents were redheads and it sounds like all of my great great grandmothers were too and so on!
I’ve been told that as I have dark eyelashes and eyebrows, my colouring is derived from my Welsh ancestors, but don’t know how true that is!
Melanie/Madame Guillotine
Katherine Swynford was reputed to hair the color of “carnelians”–at least that is according to her brother-in-law Geoffrey Chaucer.
Thanks!